P 97 
.J73 

Copy 1 



i ' 2 ',, ';"'■< •.'''y,'<"j 



B? 






^ .*^ 



7> o> 






3> :^ -2-^^ ~ 



^ ^3> J 



^*^5^»3e^«' 



^3 



— »:5 z_ 

^2> . 












>J2 



f LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



\ UMITED STATES OF AMERICA 







Z)^ 
:^^^ 

^E> 






























"3 L> 



==4^ j3) 1>^ 









s i)> 












^^;35:^ ::2a 






yiMf 


















'15) :5>i» - 



























-^^.-^_ 






^5^'tpi>'^^- 






XI 



THE 



GENESIS 



NEW ENGLAND STATE 



CONNECTICUT) 



"There was only one thing clearer to hiiu [the New Englander] than his township 
— his hearth. The 'town' was as ancient as the neighborhood, and older than the 
county ; his great-grandson knows that it is much older than the State, or the Union 
of the States.— £". G. Scott. 

"In this part of the Union [New England] the impulsion of political activity was 
given in the townships ; and it may almost be said that each of them originally formed 
an independent nation. It is important to remember that they have not been invested 
■with privileges, but that they seem, on the contrary, to have surrendered a portion of 
their independence to the State." — De Tocqueville, {Reeve's Trans.). 

"Each New England State may be described as a confederacy of minor republics 
called towns." — PalJ'rey. 

"The inhabited part of Massachusetts was recognized as divided into little territo- 
ries, each of which, for its internal purposes, constituted a separate integral govern- 
ment, free from supervision." — Bancroft. 

& m H I r e p n 1 c b r a f i 1 i a j) u I c ^ r i o r I 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
Historical and Political Science 

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 



History is past Politics and Politics present History. — Freeman 



XI 



THE 



GENESIS 

OF A 

NEW ENGLAND STATE 

(CONNECTICUT) 

Read before llie Historical and Political Science zissociation, April 13, 1883 

BY ALEXANDER JOHNSTON, A. M. 



BALTIJIORE 

Published by the Johns Hopkiks University 

SKPTEMHEK, 1883. 



JOHN MURPHY & CO., PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 



THE 



GENESIS OF A NEW ENGLAND STATE 



(CONISTECTICTIT) 



In the new interest which has sprung up of late years in 
the institutional history of the United States, it is a little 
strange that the territorial forms and features, the bodies, of 
the States themselves are usually left so far out of account. 
It may be that this neglect has come from their comparative 
constancy of outline. It is easy to trace most of the internal 
workings of the State to the town system or its equivalents, 
and to acce{)t them as a purely natural outgrowth. But it is 
just as easy to see that the external outline of New York, 
Illinois, or Texas has, from a very early period, been much 
the same as at present, and to accept it as artificial, as imposed 
on the State spirit by some superior power. 

And it must be confessed that this distinction holds good 
as a general rule. Each of our States has had, throughout 
its history, a remarkable uniformity of feature. There is 
comj)aratively little of that breaking up and reuniting, that 
shooting out of a crystal here, or disappearance of a limb 
there, which gives the idea of natural growth in a French 
kingdom, while it makes it difficult to say just where the 
growth took permanent shape. Our States, we might almost 
say, came into the world full grown, like Minerva. Even 
the Massachusetts towns, the accepted exemplars of their class, 
found their Commonwealth boundaries waiting tor them when 
they came into existence, and conformed to them. In the 
original States there is usually a certain sequence of events: 

5 



6 The Genesis of a 

a grant of territory by the King to a great mercantile com- 
pany or court favorite; a subsidiary, or an entirely new, grant 
to actual colonizers; and the location of the colony with fairly, 
if clumsily, defined boundaries, which have continued sub- 
stantially the same down to our own day. In the States 
subsequently formed there is a quite parallel sequence of 
events: the acquisition of jurisdiction by the nation; the 
establishment of territorial boundaries by Congress; and the 
erection of a State within the external limitations already 
imposed. Of course, the general idea will not bear minute 
examination : all the States have had their variations of 
outline, some of them pregnant with significance; and the 
historical geography of the United States is a field where 
some worker will yet find. a rich and virgin soil. Neverthe- 
less it remains true that the individuality of the future State 
is sufficiently constant from its first connection with human 
interest, history and government to give good reason for con- 
sidering it in the beginning as a human creation rather than 
a natural growth. 

We look, then, as a general rule, to the will of the gov- 
erning power of a colony for the body, the territorial ibrm, 
of a township, while we look to the Germanic heredity of the 
people for its spirit; we look to the town spirit for the spirit 
of the future State, and to the will of a King or of a Congress 
for its body, its territorial form and boundaries. It is the 
purpose of this article to direct attention to one of the few 
exceptions to this general rule, the present State of Connec- 
ticut,* a State which was born, not made, which grew by 
natural accretion of townsiiips, which formed its own govern- 
ment, made its own laws, engaged in its own alliances, fought 



* Rhode Island and Vermont are the other exceptions, and as well 
deserve examination. We can hardly include Plymouth among the 
exceptions, for that colony only claimed individuality by charter pur- 
chase; nor Texas, whose admission to the Union was a flagrant violation 
of every precedent of btate origin. 



New England State [Connecticut.) 7 

its own wars, and built up its own body, without the will of 
King, Kaiser, or Congress, and which, even at the last, only 
made use of the royal authority to complete the symmetry of 
the boundaries it had fairly won for itself.* 

Territorial Claims. 

The accepted story of the transmission of the title to the 
jurisdiction of Connecticut is very simple. The soil was a 
part of James I.'s grant to the Council of Plymouth ; a part 
of the smaller grant to the Earl of Warwick in 1630 by the 
Council of Plymouth ; a part of the still smaller grant to 
Viscount Say and Sele, Lord Brooke, and others in 1631 by 
Warwick ; and the territory, as it now stands, was contirmed 
to the colony of Connecticut by Charles IL's charter of 1662, 
with the consent of the survivors of the last named grantees. 
Minor difficulties, such as Fenwick's troublesome claim under 
the Say grant, were bought off by the colony; the Indian 
possessory title was extinguished by purchase and conquest, 
and the colony's chain of title to its own territory seemed to 
be without a weak link. In that case, there would have been 
nothing out of the ordinary in the Connecticut colony, and 



* Authorities in Gknekal: Trumbull's Colonial Records of Connec- 
ticut; Hoadley's Colonial Records of New Haven; Bo wen's Boundary 
Disputes of Connecticut; Trumbull's History of Connecticut; Hollister's 
History of Connecticut ; Dwight's History of Connecticut; Peters' General 
History of Connecticut (McCormick's reprint of 1877) ; Atwater's Colo- 
nial History of New Haven; Bacon's Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut ; 
Fowler's Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut; Savage's Winthi-ojt's 
New England ; Brodhe&d's History of Neio Fork; 0'Cii\\aghixn'& History 
of New Netherland ; Thompson's History of Long Island; Wood's First 
Towns of Long Island; Holland's History of Western Massachusetts; 
Hartley's Hartford in the Olden Time; Stiles's History of Ancient Wind- 
sor; Hall's History of Norwalk ; Huntington's History of Stamford; 
Caulkins's History of New London ; Mead's History of Greenwich ; 
Howell's Early History of Southampton, L. I. ; Bond's History of Water- 
town, Mass. References are made to the author's name, except in the 
case of records. 



8 The Genesis of a 

the formation of its territorial body would have followed the 
general rule. 

But there was a weak link, or rather a non-existent link, 
the grant to Warwick : he who looks for it will look in vain. 
Trumbull and Dwight* assume that the Say and Sele grant 
was really from the Council of Plymouth, of which Warwick 
was the President; but the Say and Sele grantf is, by its 
terms, from Warwick jjersonally, and the Council of Plymouth 
is not even named in it. Hollister J takes a much more ten- 
able ground : he admits that no trace can be found of a grant 
to Warwick, but assumes that such a grant must have been 
made, since Warwick would not otherwise have ventured to 
make the Say and Sele grant. Peters § scouts the notion of 
a grant to Warwick, and taunts the colonial government with 
its inability to show any original title. Bancroft || and other 
general authorities state the grant to Warwick without noting 
any doubt as to its validity, and it is generally accepted 
without question as the basis of Connecticut's territorial 
claims, subsequently confirmed by the charter. 

On the other hand, not only is it evident that the original 
settlement of Connecticut was legally a sheer intrusion, in 
absolute disregard of the paper title on which it afterwards 
])rofessed to rely, but the Plymouth Council itself did not 
recognize the Warwick grant, or the claims of the Say and 
Sele associates under it. On the contrary, when it divided 



*1 Trumbull, 27; Dioicjht, cap. 1, 

f It is given in 1 Trumbull, 495. 

+ 1 Hollister, 20. 

^ Peters, 27. " The Governor and Company of Connecticut gave a 
formal answer, setting up a title under the Earl of Warwick, who, they 
said, disposed of the land to Lord Say and Sele and Lord Brooke, and 
the Lords Say and Brooke sold the same to Fenwick, Peters, and others. 
The Earl of Arran answered that, when they produced a grant from the 
Plymouth Company of those lands to the Earl of Warwick, it should have 
an answer. But the colony was silent." 

II 1 Bancroft's United States, 395. 



New England State [Connecticut.) 9 

the remaining property in the soil among its members in 
1635, before surrendering the jurisdiction to the King, it 
granted the territory between the Narragansett and Connec- 
ticut rivers to the royalist Marquis of Hamihon, and recorded 
the grant. This was tlie only Connecticut grant, up to the 
charter, which came from a source having an ostensible power 
to grant, and it became obsolete by non-user, since the royalist 
patentee was unable to make any attempt to colonize under it 
until colonization was completed Avithout his assistance.* On 
the other side of Long Island Sound lay the fine territory of 
Long Island. This was covered by a royal grant to the Earl 
of Stirling in 1635; but the grantee made no attemj)t to 
assert any rights of jurisdiction, and his grantees had at first 
as open opportunity as the settlers on the mainland to erect 
independent town republics. f 

The nearest approach to the truth seems to be that an 
informal, and consequently invalid, grant of some kind was 
made to Warwick, and that the original colonists, in their 
subsequent search for a paper title, took this as the best one 
available to them, though -they had never respected it in 
practice. They were in no position to feel or assert any pride 
in that which makes their colonization noteworthy, the absence 
of an original patent. They would have asserted the Ham- 
ilton patent with equal warmth, if it had offered superior 
advantages; they chose the- Warwick title because Say in 
1662, while he was a republican, was yet a man of influence 
with the King, because he was a friend to New Englanders 
and disposed to assist any New England colony, and because 
he, the only surviving patentee, was too rich to care for quit 
rents and too old to be a dangerous ally. The truth is, that 



* The Hamilton heirs, in 1683 and subsequent j'ears, sued for a recovery 
of their alleged rights in the soil, but their suit was denied for the reason 
that it would be unjust to disturb long settled titles, and to give the heirs 
the benefit of the colonists' improvements. See 1 Trumbull, 360. 

f Thompson, 117; 1 O'Callaghan, 210, 215; Wood, 6, 20. 
2 



10 The Genesis of a 

the colonization and organization of Connecticut took place 
Avithout the remotest connection with any pai)er title what- 
ever, and that the Warwick title was purely an after thought 
to bolster up, by the forms of English law, the really better 
title of the colonists, acquired by their own purchases, con- 
quests, and colonization. For the purposes of this article the 
AVarwick and Say titles may be dismissed as practically both 
non-existent. 

In 1634, then, the territory now occupied by Connecticut 
was a veritable No-Man's-Land. It had been granted, indeed, 
to the Plymouth Council, but the grant stood much on a par 
with a j)resentation of a bear skin whose natural owner was 
still at large in the forest. On the north, the Massachusetts 
boundary line had been defined by charter, though its exact 
location, in its whole length, was still in the air; on the east, 
the Plymouth ])urchase boundary was in the same condition ; 
on the west, the asserted Dutch boundary of New Netherlands 
was in the same condition. The debatable ground between 
these unsettled boundaries offered one of the few opportuni- 
ties which the town system has had to show how it can build 
up the body, as well as provide the spirit, for a State. A 
brief sketch of the manner in which the work was done will 
show that the towns, the natural outgrowth of the colonists' 
natures, formed their own colonial governments, pushed back 
the asserted boundaries of their neighbors, and obtained for 
themselves a local habitation and a name among common- 
wealths long before the King added the sanction of his royal 
assent to a work which had already been accomplished with- 
out it. 

Colonization. 

Movement toward the vacant territory fairly began in 1633. 
In that year the Dutch established a trading house where 
Hartford now stands; AVilliam Holmes, a Plymouth skipper, 
sailed up the Connecticut river, passed the Dutch station, and 
established a trading house where Windsor now stands; and 



New England State [Connecticut.) 11 

a few Massachusetts traders and explorers had made their way 
throuc^h the wiklerness to the same point. In the following 
year the first real settlements took place. In 1630 and 1632 
the towns and congregations of Dorchester, Watertown and 
Newtown, in Massachusetts, had been founded, each by a 
distinct body of immigrants from England.* For various 
reasons they became dissatisfied with their location, and de- 
sired a removal further west. After a year's persistent appli- 
cation they wrung 'from the General Court a reluctant consent, 
conditioned on their remaining within the jurisdiction of 
JNIassachusetts.f In 1634, before the consent was given, a 
few persons from Watertown settled at Wethersfield. In 
1635 the main Watertown body followed to Wethersfield, 
and the Dorchester body to Windsor; and in 1636 the main 
Newtown body removed to Hartford. At the end of the 
year 1636, these three townships, the nucleus of the Connec- 
ticut colony, contained about 160 families and 800 })ersons. 
In the following year they contained a sufficient number of 
fighting men to declare war against the Pequots, and almost 
annihilated that tribe. | 

In 1635, the Say and Sele associates built a fort at the 
mouth of the Connecticut river. In 1639, Colonel George 
Fenwick, the only one of the associates who showed any dis- 
position to urge the claim, brought colonists to Saybrook, or 
Seabrook, as the fort was often called, and it kept up an inde- 
pendent existence for some years. Fenwick was treated by 
the Connecticut colonists with the deference due to a possibly 
formidable rival. In 1644 various reasons recalled him to 
England, and he sold Saybrook to the Connecticut colony. 
The equivalent was to be certain tolls upon vessels passing 
the fort, and they netted Fenwick about £1,600. In return 
he transferred the fort and promised, "if it came into his 



* 1 Mather's MagnaLia, 75. 
f 1 Savage's Winthrop, 167. 
t See the Connecticut authorities. 



12 The Genesis of a 

power," to transfer all the land from Saybrook to the Narra- 
gansett river. This agreement was never executed, but it 
quieted the only one of the Say and Sele associates who had 
shown any disposition to interfere with the pushing and 
ambitious Connecticut colony. Saybrook now became a Con- 
necticut town.* 

In 1637 the wealthiest body of immigrants that had yet 
come from England arrived at Boston. '[" Tiiey resisted all 
inducements to settle in Massachusetts, and in 1638 founded 
a colony of their own at what is now New Haven. Their 
title rested entirely on purchase from the Indians, as did all 
their subsequent extensions. When their stronger neighbor, 
the Connecticut colony, by its Fenwick purchase, acquired a 
pseudo title under the Say and Sele grant, the New Haven 
colony at first showed signs of a disposition to assert the 
Stirling grant as perhaps giving it some kind of a paper 
title beyond its mere purchases on Long Island;]}; but it soon 
settled back, for its right to existence, upon its Indian pur- 
chases and its recognition as a member of the New England 
Union in 1643. § 

There were thus, in 1638, three independent colonies 
within the present limits of Connecticut. One of them, the 
Saybrook colony, rested on a paper title, which rested on 
nothing and was never perfected. The other two, the sur- 
vivors after 1644, had not even a baseless paper title to rest 
upon. Both were as perfect examples of " squatter sover- 
eignty " as Douglas could have asked for. Without a shadow 
of reliance upon authority, they formed their own govern- 
ments, 'propria vigore, made war, peace and alliances, levied 
taxes, and collected customs. In 1643 they united with 



* Dwight, cap. 12. The agreement is in 1 Conn. Rec, 266. 
^Atwater, 80. 

J 2 Neio Haven Rec.., 3O0. "Our title to those lands from the Lord 
Starling." 

^See New Haven authorities. 



New England State {Connecticut.) 13 

Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay in the New England Union. 
In 1650 they joined in the treaty at Hartford with Governor 
Stuyvesant, which put the boundary between New York and 
Connecticut* very much as at present, except that it was a 
straight line throughout, and continued across Long Island 
from Oyster Bay to the Ocean. Before the charter was 
granted, Massachusetts f had agreed to a boundary line not 
very far from that which was ultimately settled; and as Mas- 
sachusetts claimed the territory on the east, the modern State 
of Rhode Island, the limits of the commonwealths were fairly 
settled. Let us see how their towns developed them, and 
how they treated their towns. 

The Connecticut Colony. 

It must be noted that these Newtown, Watertown, and 
Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple 
transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. 
In each of these migrations a part of the people was left 
behind, so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to 
exist. And yet each of them brought its Massachusetts 
magistrates, its ministers (except Watertown), and all the 
political and ecclesiastical machinery of the town ; J and at 
least one of them (Dorchester) had hardly changed its struc- 
ture since its members first organized in IbSO at Dorchester 
in England. The first settlement of Connecticut was thus 
the migration of three distinct and individual town ort>;aniza- 
tions out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into abso- 
lute freedom. It was the Massachusetts town system set 
loose in the wilderness. 

At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts 
names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, Feb- 



*1 Brodhead, 519. 

f Bowen, 17, (map), 

+ 1 Bond, 980; Hartley, 49; Siiles, 25 (note). 



14 The Genesis of a 

ruary 21, 1636(7),* that It was decided that "the plantacon 
iiowe called Newtowne shalbe called & named by the name 
of Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon now called 
Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild," and "the 
plantacon called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor." On the 
same day the bonndaries between the three towns were 
"agreed" npon, and thus the germ of the future State was 
the agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, 
the subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637,t for 
the first time took the name of the " Genrall Corte," and was 
composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had pre- 
viously held it, of "comittees" of three from each town. 
So simply and naturally did the migrated town system 
evolve, in this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the 
Senate and House of Representatives of the future State of 
Connecticut. The Assembly further showed its consciousness 
of separate existence by declaring "an offensive warr ag' the 
Pequoitt," assigning the proportions of its miniature army 
and sui)plies to each town, and appointing a commander. In 
June it even ordered a settlement to "sett downe in the 
Pequoitt Countrey | & River in place convenient to mayn- 
teine o'' right y' God by Conquest hath given to us." So 
complete are the features of State-hood, that we may fairly 
assign May 1, 1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. 
No King, no Congress presided over the birth ; its seed was 
in the towns. 

January 14, 1638(9), the little Commonwealth formed the 
fiist American Constitution, § at Hartford. So far as its pro- 



* 1 Con7i. Jtec, 7. 

f 1 Conn, Rec, 9, 

X The Pequot Country was, in general terms, the south-eastern part of 
the State, east of the Connecticut river. Massachusetts claimed a share 
in the rights of conquest, but Connecticut never relaxed her hold upon 
it, and the charter gave her a formal approval of her claim. — Boweii, 26 
(map). 

§1 Conn. Rec, 20. 



New England State {Connecticut.) 15 

visions are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth 
Council, the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might 
as well have been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. 
It is made, according to the ])reaml)le, on the authority of the 
people dwelling on "the River of Connectecotte and the 
Lands thereunto adioyneing;" its objects are to establish 
"an orderly and decent Gouerment," which should "order 
and dispose of the affayres of the people," and to maintain 
"the liberty and purity of the gospell" and "the disciplyne 
of the churches;" and for these purposes its authors "doe 
therefore assotiate and conjoyne our seines to be as one Publike 
State or Comonwealtli." The only sovereignty recognized in 
the constitution or the oaths of office prescribed by it, is that 
of the people. It cannot, therefore, be said that the govern- 
ment of Connecticut was formed by the three towns, though 
it undeniably grew out of them and was conditioned on every 
side by their precedent existence. Its establishment has some 
parallels to that of the Federal Constitution one hundred and 
fifty years afterward. In both cases the constituent units, 
towns and States, never independent in fact before or after, 
were nominally independent before but not after. In both 
cases, while the units remained the same as before, the con- 
stitution was not framed by General Court or by Congress, 
but by an unprecedented body, a popular convention in the 
one case, a Federal Convention in the other. In both cases 
the new political creation succeeded to a part of the powers 
which the constituent units had before exercised. Here the 
parallel ceases: there was no occasion for any ratification by 
the towns, since their inhabitants had united in framing the 
constitution itself. 

There were to be two "General Assemblies or Courts" 
yearly, in April and September : the former for the election 
of a Governor and other magistrates for one 3'ear ; the latter 
"for raakeing of lawes." A General Court was to consist of 
a Governor, Magistrates, and Deputies. Each town was to 



16 The Genesis of a 

nominate two persons as Magistrates ; * and out of the whole 
number nominated the General Court was to choose by ballot 
not less than six for the next year, but might "ad so many 
more as they judge requisitt." The three towns were each 
to send four Deputies " to agitate the atfayres of the Comon- 
wealth ; " new towns were to send Deputies according to 
their population. If the Governor and Magistrates at any 
time refused to summon a General Court upon petition of the 
freemen, the towns, through their constables, were to issue 
the summons, and in such case the Governor and Magistrates 
were to be excluded from the General Court. The election 
of local officers and the management of local affairs were left 
entirely to the towns, with an indefinite power of su})ervision 
in the General Court. "In w"'' said Generall Courts shall 
consist the supreme power of the Coraonwealth, and they only 
sliall haue power to make lawes or repeal the, to graunt leuyes, 
to admitt of Freemen, "j" dispose of lands vndisposed of to 
seuerall Townes or p''sons, and also shall haue power to call 
ether Courte or Magestrate or any other p'"son whatsoeuer into 
question for any misdemeanour, and may for just causes dis- 
place or deale otherwise according to the nature of the offence, 
and also may deale in any other matter that concerns the good 
of this comonwelth, excepte election of Magestrats, w""* shall 
be done by the whole boddy of Freemen." This constitution 
was not only the earliest but the longest in continuance of 
American documents of the kind, unless we except the Rhode 
Island charter. J It was not essentially altered by the charter 
of 1G62, which was practically a royal confirmation of it; 
and it was not until 1818 that the charter, that is, the con- 



* These officers, the germ of the future Senate, exercised judicial powers 
in their towns ; and, as the General Court grew stronger, it also appointed 
commissioners " with mageslraticall powers " for the towns. 

fin 1643 the General Court left the admission of freemen to a major 
vote of each town, retaining only a formal right of confirmation. 

J: Connecticut, 1639-181^; Rhode Island, 1663-1842. 



Neio Enigland Stale {Connecticut.) 17 

stitution of 1639, was superseded by the present constitution. 
Connecticut was as absolutely a State in 1639 as in 1776. 

In both the Connecticut and the New Haven colonies the 
General Courts not only made laws and jiardoned offences 
against them, but exercised the judicial power on appeal from 
the Particular Courts, the magistrates of the towns. The 
records of both are cumbered with tedious civil and criminal 
suits, in which Connecticut provided for, and New Haven 
denied, trial by jury. But the essential difference between 
the two was, that Connecticut left to the towns a control over 
their civil and religious affairs which the more somber tone 
of New Haven denied.^ The early Connecticut town and its 
church were identical ; * the officers and affairs of both were 
settled to the people's liking at one meeting; and the General 
Court interfered only to apportion taxes and decide differences. 
From the first appearance of a New Haven town, the General 
Court was always meddling. Connecticut gave the town sys- 
tem full and free play : New Haven aimed to be a centralized 
theocracy, responsible for the moral well being of its depend- 
ent towns. The consequence was that Connecticut rapidly 
outstripped her rival in the race for the formation of new 
towns and the appropriation of the No-man's-land around 
them. ^ Her early Indian wars gave her extensive rights of 
conquest, which her restless citizens were not slow to perfect 
by settlement. Even the unchecked religious dissensions in 
her churches hastened the process of town formation by scat- 
tering new settlements governed by Connecticut notions, f 
Thus, long before the grant of a charter, Connecticut had 



*In 1726, members of other sects than the Congregational having 
become numerous, the General Court allowed the formation of other 
churches. When this was done, the Congregational church took the legal 
name of "The Prime Ancient Society," and the town meetings were 
separated from it. 

f A Wethersfleld offshoot left the Connecticut colony, colonized Stam- 
ford, and very naturally became the most unmanageable of the New 
Uaven towns. 

3 



18 The Genesis of a 

hemmed her rival in by towns of lier own, confined her to 
the territory around the original settlement, and left her no 
room for expansion. 

Connecticut histories state that the towns were " incorpor- 
ated" in 1639 by the General Court. The only incorporation 
was a series of general acts, passed October 10, 1639, the first 
after the adoption of the constitution ; but these were only a 
formal legislative confirmation of recognized town privileges. 
They enacted* that '" the Townes of Hartford, Windsore, and 
Wethersfield, or any other of the Townes within this juris- 
diction," should have power to dispose of vacant lands, choose 
their own officers and courts, and control their local aifairs; 
and they confirmed to the towns the probate jurisdiction and 
control over the records of real estate transfers which they 
still retain. They speak also of the towns' "lyraitts bounded 
out by this court." In the case of neigiiboring towns, par- 
ticularly where there were any differences of opinion, the 
court always exercised this power of settling town boundaries, 
beginning in the next year, 1640.t The boundaries of the 
new towns of Farmington and New London were laid out by 
the court in 1645 and 1649,t and this method of locating a 
new town was thereafter increasingly more frequent until 
1662. After that year the General Court's authority in the 
matter became exclusive. 

But, as a general rule, before the charter was received, the 
town boundaries were fixed by agreement of the inhabitants 
or by Indian purchase, and the tacit recognition of the Gene- 
ral Court and its agents. The "incorporation" of a new 
town usually consisted in such fatherly advice as was given 
in 1650 to the persons intending to settle Norwalk : they are 
directed to make all preparations for self-defence, to divide 



*1 Conn. Rec, 36. 
f 1 Conn. Rec, 47. 

Jl Conn. Rec, 133, 185. But in New London local government had 
already been begun by the people. Cmdkins, 56. 



New England State (Connecticut.) 19 

up the land subject to the rectification of " aberrations '* by 
the General flourt, and to "attend a due payment of theire 
proportions in all publique charges."* The organization of 
a primitive Connecticut town was thus altogether popular, 
sometimes witii, sometimes without, the General Court's 
express control. 

As soon as the population of any defined purchase or grant 
became numerous enough to demand local government, a gen- 
eral meeting elected a constable and two or more townsmen, 
ordered the erection of a pound and (generally) of a minister's 
house, and took charge of allotments of land. As soon as the 
little town gained some consistence, the General Court's agents 
appeared with a demand for the town's "rate" or statement 
of persons and property, for purposes of taxation. For these 
purposes the constable was a Commonwealth's officer as well 
as a local officer, and through him and the magistrates or 
commissioners the town was attached to the Commonwealth.'}' 

As soon as the rate showed a sufficient number of freemen, 
the tov/n might send a Deputy to the General Court ; but this 
troublesome privilege was at first unused. Until 1647 the 
twelve Deputies from the three original towns sufficed to 
make laws and lay taxes for all the towns.J Even when the 
number of Deputies begins to increase, the towns which they 
severally represent are not named. But the growth of the 
Connecticut town system may be seen by this steady increase 
in the number of Deputies after 1644, when Southampton, 
L. I., was admitted as a town. In May, 1647, the number 
of Deputies rose from 12 to 18; in May, 1649, to 20; in 
May, 1651, to 22; in May, 1654, to 24; in May, 1655, to 
25 ; and in February, 1656(7), to 26. At first only the three 



*In 1651 the General Court formally voted that Mattabezeck (Middle- 
town), and Norwalk sliould be towns, and choose constables. 

f The process may be followed in detail in the local histories among the 
authorities. 

IjiOnce, in 1645, thirteen were present. 



20 The Genesis of a 

original towns appear in the "rates." In 1645, Stratforrl, 
Fairfield, Si)uthampton, L. I., Saybrook, and Farmington 
appear in the rates. In 1653, Norwalk, Middletown, and 
New London close the list of formal additions to the rate list 
of towns, until the advent of the charter. The other smaller 
towns, whose independent existence is constantly recognized 
in the General Court proceedings, were rated as parts of these 
principal towns. 

The natural expansiveness of the free Connecticut town 
system was exemplified on Long Island.* After 1662 the 
colony's claim to that island rested on the charter's grant of 
the "island's adjoining" its coast: before that date, its claim 
was exactly on a par with its claim to the mainland, the vol- 
untary action of the towns. In 1635 the King had granted 
Long Island to the Earl of Stirling. He seemed to care 
nothing for its jurisdiction ; and, as purchases were made, 
the settlers formed towns and applied for admission to Con- 
necticut.f Southampton was admitted in 1644, Easthamp- 
ton in 1649, Setauket in 1658, Huntington in 1660, and 
Southold and the other English towns in 1662, after the 
grant of the charter. In 1664 the Duke of York, having 
bought the Stirling patent, extended the jurisdiction of New 
York over Long Island, and Connecticut was unable to resist 
him. I In 1673, when the Dutch recaptured New York, the 
English towns on Long Island again took shelter with Con- 
necticut; but in the following year the Duke was again put 
into possession of his province, and Connecticut finally lost 
Long Island. § 

During its period of independent existence, the Connecticut 
commonwealth, as has been said, gave the town system full 



* Springfield, Mass., was also for a time claimed as a Connecticut town, 
1 Holland, 30-33. More than a century afterward, Connecticut's claim to 
a part of Pennsylvania was only asserted by means of the continued vital- 
ity of her town system, and its extension to Wyoming. 

f Southold entered the New Haven colony, by purchase. 

X 1 Brodhend, 726. 

I Wood, 24-28. 



New England State [Connecticut.) 21 

and free play. The instances of interference with local gov- 
ernment are very few. In October, 1656, the towns were 
forbidden to entertain "Quakers, Ranters, Adamites, or such 
like notorious heretiques," under penalty of .£5 per week. 
In February, 1656(7), the General Court limited the right of 
suffrage by declaring that the phrase "admitted inhabitants" 
in the constitution meant only " householders that are one & 
twenty yeares of age, or have bore office, or have X30 estate."* 
Tills was reaffirmed in 1658. In March, 1657(8), it was 
ordered that no persons siiould "imbody themselves into 
church estate" without consent of the General Court and 
approbation of their neighbor churches. With these excep- 
tions, Connecticut towns did very much as tiiey pleased in 
civil and religious affiiirs, provided they paid their rates 
promptly. 

New Haven Colony. 

June 4, 1639, the planters at Quinnipiack (New Haven) 
met and framed a civil government which was at least closely 
bound up with the ecclesiastical government. f They agreed 
that the Scriptures should be the law of the town ; that only 
church members should be burg-esses and choose maii-istrates 
from their own number; that twelve burgesses should now 
be chosen by general vote; and that these should choose seven 
of their number to be the seven pillars of the church and the 
first General Court. In the following year the name of the 
town was changed to New Haven. The management of 
public affairs by the General Court was of the most austere 
character. Sumptuary laws and acts to regulate prices and 
wages were immediately passed ; and the authority of the 
church was upheld by punishing criminally such as did 
"expressly crosse y* rule" by venturing to " eate, drinke, & 



*1 Conn. Rec, 293. 

f 1 New Haven Rec, 11. Bacon, 24, argues to the contrary; but see 
Atwater, 94. 



22 The Genesis of a 

to shew respect unto excommunjcate persons." This system 
did not at first provoke any resistance in the original off- 
shoots* from New Haven, the towns of Milford, Guilford, 
and Branford, whose people were wholly at one with those 
of New Haven. But it was a constant source of heart- 
burning in the more distant acquisitions of Stamford and 
Southold;t it checked any extension of the New Haven 
jurisdiction outside of these six towns; and in the final 
struggle between Connecticut and New Haven, it proved 
to be tiie latter's vulnerable point. 

New Haven extension was altogether by purchase ; and, 
when the union of the towns was consummated, the General 
Court controlled the town organizations much more minutely 
than Connecticut attempted to do. Constables and magis- 
trates for the new towns were appointed at first by the 
General Court, and the right of confirmation at least was 
always insisted upon, even when the towns began to assert 
their own right of choice. Some symptoms of weakening 
were shown as internal dissensions grew warmer. In J 656 
two constables were apj)ointed for Stamford, but one of them 
was not to serve if the freemen of that town were not willing, 
" though the court be of another minde."| But, as a general 
rule, all the towus were to follow implicitly the civil and 
ecclesiastical methods of the parent town ; even the officers 
of their " trayned bandes " were to be church members, 
ai)pr()ved by the magistrates whom the General Court had 
appointed or confirmed. 

In this manner five dependent or co-ordinate towns were 
formed. § The neighboring towns of Miltbrd and Guillord, 
bought in 1639, were independent at first, but were admitted 
to the General Court in 1643. Stamford, bought in 1610, 



* Fowler, 68. 

■j- Huntington, 73 ; Atwater, 387. 

X 2 Neio Haven Rec, 173. 

^ Unsuccessful efforts were also made to colonize in Delaware Baj-. 



New England State {Connecticut.) 23 

was admitted in 1641. Southold, L. I,, bought in 1640, was 
admitted in 1649. Greenwich was also Bou<;ht in 1640, but 
the Dutch seduced the purchasing agents into making it a 
Dutch tovvn.* In 1650, by the treaty of Hartford, it was 
restored to New Haven and became a part of Stamford. Tiie 
last of the towns, Branford, granted to a new colony in 1640, 
was also indej)endent at first: it was admitted in 1651. In 
1656 and 1659 Huntington, L. I., applied to be admitted, 
but was refused because it insisted on the right of trying all 
its civil cases, and all its criminal cases not capital. f All 
the New Haven towns were thus restricted to the same mould. 
One trivial exception was made in the case of Milford, which 
had made voters of six persons, not church members, before 
its admission. This was allowed to stand, after much nego- 
tiation, on condition that it sliould never be repeated, and 
that the six interlopers should never hold office. 

October 27, 1643, the General Court, which was now com- 
posed of the Governor and the Magistrates and Deputies of 
New Haven, Stamford, Milford, and Guilford, adopted a 
series of '*foundamentall orders" as a constitution. J All 
persons were to have the rights of " inheritance and com- 
merce," but only church members were to be burgesses, 
vote, or hold office. The towns were to choose their own 
courts, but these were only to try civil cases under £20, or 
inflict punishment of ''stocking and whipping," or a fine of 
.£50. All liigher cases, and appeals in the lower cases, were 
reserved to the General Court. The free burgesses were to 
choose the Governor and other commonwealth officers, those 
at a distance voting by proxy. The Governor, the Magis- 
trates of each town, and two Deputies from each town, were 
to meet at New Haven in General Court annually in April 
and October. The General Court was to maintain the purity 



*Mead, 28. 

t2 New Haven Rec, 237, 299. 

Jl New Haven Bee., 112; Fowler, 71. 



24 The Genesis of a 

of religion and "suppress the contrary," raakfe and repeal 
laws, require their execution by the towns, impose an oath of 
fidelity upon tiie people, levy rates upon the towns, and try 
causes according to tlie Scriptures. In April, 1644, " the laws 
of God, as they were delivered by Moses," were adopted as 
the criminal code of the Commonwealth.* 

The records of the General Court from 1644 until 1653 
have disappeared, but it is evident that internal difficulties 
had taken shape during the period covered by the break. In 
1653 the General Court remarked with asperity that it had 
"heard sundrie reports of an vnsatisfying offensive way of 
cariag in some at Southold, as those w"*" grow weary of that 
Avay of civill gouerment w"^ they haue for diners yeares (and 
w"* much comfort and safty) lined vnder," and warned the 
offenders to abate the scandal. f Soon afterward the Gov- 
ernor called attention to a public appeal to the people " to 
stand for their libberties, that they may all haue their votes 
and shake of the yoake of gouermt they haue bine vnder in 
this jurisdiction." In the next year there were incipient 
rebellions in Southold and Stamford, and it was ordered that 
"a serious view be made" in each town, and the oath of 
fidelity be administered to all the inhabitants. Several of 
the Southold people were haled before the Court for sedi- 
tiously declaring that this was "a tyrannicall gouerm'." Two 
years afterward the Court complained that men not church 
members had been allowed to vote in some of the towns, 
contrary to the " foundamentall orders," and directed that 
" these orders be exactly attended." The Southold consta- 
bles were specially instructed to make a "reformation" in 
that town. 

This j)ersistent attempt to keep the towns in pupilage, and 
the political power in tiie hands of church members, con- 
trasted very uniavorably with the policy of Connecticut, 

* 1 New Eaven Rec, 130, 
■\'2 New Havoi Itec, 17. 



Neio England State {Connecticut.) 25 

where, after 1643, the General Court jfdraitted as voters all 
who were approved by a major vote of any town, with a 
general property qualification. The struggle was between a 
free town system and a system of shackled towns; and the 
latter was at a disadvantage. A strong Connecticut party had 
grown up before the charter was granted, not only in Stam- 
iord and Southold, but in Guilford and Milford. In 16G1 
several of the magistrates refused to take the oath of fidelity; 
and the spirit of disaffection had eaten so deep that, if we 
may accept the unchallenged assertion of the Connecticut 
General Court, the annihilation of the New Haven jurisdic- 
tion, and the absorption of its territory into Connecticut, were 
urged by the "cheife in gouerment" at New Haven in letters 
to Governor Winthrop.* This result, as accomplished by the 
charter in 1662, seems to have been only a hurrying of an 
inevitable catastrophe. 

The Union. 

The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony 
under a cloud in the favor of the new government : it had 
been tardy and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; 
it had been especially remiss in searching for the regicide 
colonels, Goffe and Whalley ; f and any application for a 
charter would have come from New Haven with a very ill 
grace. Connecticut was under no such disabilities; and it 
had in its Governor, John AVinthrop, a man well calculated 
to win favor with the new King. | The General Court had 
a clear perception of its proper line of action, and followed 
up its advantages with promptitude, energy, and success. Its 
objects were to-obtain from the King, in the first flush of the 
Restoration, a confii-mation of the privileges which it had 



*2 New Haven Rec, 536; 1 Mather's Magnalia, 78. 

f See Secretary Rawson's letter to Gov. Leete in 2 New Haven Rec, 419. 

X 1 HoUisier, 207. 

4 



26 The Genesis of a 

evolved out of a free town system, and to remove peaceably 
the obstacle to complete State-hood which was imposed by the 
independent position of New Haven. In March, 1660, tiie 
General Court solemnly declared its loyalty to Charles II., 
sent the Governor to England to offer a loyal address to the 
King and ask him for a charter, and laid aside £500 for his 
expenses. Winthrop was successful, and the charter was 
granted April 20, 1662. 

The acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders 
to the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for 
it was a grant of j)rivileges with hardly a limitation. Prac- 
tically the King had given Winthrop carte blanche, and 
allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It incor- 
porated the freemen of Connecticut as a " body corporate and 
pollitique," by the name of "The Governor and Company of 
the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in Amer- 
ica." There were to be a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and 
twelve Assistants (hitherto called Magistrates). The Gov- 
ernor, Assistants, and two Deputies from each town were to 
meet twice a year in General Assembly, to make laws, elect 
and remove Governors, Assistants and Magistrates. The 
people were to have all the liberties and immunities of free 
and natural subjects of the King, as if born within the realm. 
It granted to the Governor and Company all that part of New 
England south of the Massachusetts line and west of the 
"Norroganatt River, commonly called Norroganatt Bay" to 
the South Sea, with the " Islands thereunto adioyneinge," 
These were the essential points of the charter,* and it is dijGfi- 
cult to see more than two points in which it altered tlie con- 
stitution adopted by the towns in 1639. There were now to 
be two deputies from each town ; and the boundaries of the 
Commonwealth now embraced the rival colony of New Haven. 
The former change had already been recommended without 



. *See the charter in 2 Conn. Rec, 3 ; and the process of obtaining it in 
1 Trumbull, 239, and 1 Holliater, 202. 



New England State {Connecticut.) 27 

result by the General Court ; and the latter was longed for 
by all the leaders of tiie colony, and was the objective point 
of the move for a charter. The fundamental point of the 
constitution, the supreme power of the General Court, was 
unchanged. Both Connecticut and New Haven had fixed 
their boundaries of their own will, or by agreement with 
their neighbors. But the separate existence of the smaller 
Commonwealth marred the fair proportions of the Common- 
wealth, in its natural outline, and Connecticut threw the 
King's sovereignty into her own scale in order to effect a 
peaceable removal of an obstacle to her complete State-hood. 
The town spirit built the Slate, and the King added his bene- 
diction to the structure. 

New Haven did not submit without a struggle, for not 
only her pride of separate existence but the supremacy of her 
ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three years a succes- 
sion of diplomatic notes passed between the General Court of 
Connecticut and "our honored friends of New Haven, Mil- 
ford, Branford, and Guilford." Southold had promptly 
accepted the charter, and there was a strong party in Stam- 
ford and Guilford which desired to take the same course. 
To strengthen this party, Connecticut appointed or confirmed 
constables and magistrates iu the towns named, and a war of 
annoyances was kept up on both sides. In October, 1664, 
the Connecticut General Court appointed the New Haven 
magistrates commissioners for their towns, " with magistra- 
ticall powers," established the New Haven local officers in 
their places for the time, and declared oblivion for any past 
resistance to the laws.* In December, Mi I ford having 
already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General 
Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held 
its last meeting and voted to submit,! " with a salvo jure of 
our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet 



*1 Conn. Rec, 437. 

"^2 N. H. Rec, 549; Alwaier, 616. 



28 The Genesis of a 

been heard in point of plea." The next year the laws of 
New Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent depu- 
ties to the General Court at Hartford. 

One of the propositions made by Connecticut in 1663* was 
that the New Haven towns should be formed into a distinct 
county, with ils own court. New Haven's refusal to unite 
on any terms caused this and the other propositions to fall 
through, and the union was finally perfected without any 
conditions. But the new General Court, in May, 1666, con- 
stituted and bounded the four counties of Hartford, New 
London, New Haven and Fairfield, and gave them separate 
courts t and, in the next year, grand juries. The county 
system of Connecticut is thus only an outgrowth of the 
union. In 1701 the General Court further voted that its 
annual October session should thereafter be held at New 
Haven. This provision of a double capital was incorpor- 
ated into the constitution of 1818, and continued until in 
1873 Hartford was made sole capital by constitutional 
amendment. 

The General Court, in its new form, at once took on all 
the features of a power superior to the towns, and resting 
no longer on the towns' authority. The settlement of the 
boundaries of new and old towns at once became a peculiar 
field of the General Court; and, until the number of towns 
increased so iar as to form a safeguard, regulation of, and 
interference in, the civil and ecclesiastical afl'airs of the towns 
was far more common and minute than before. In 1685-6 
all the towns whose title rested on Indian purchase received 
patents therefor from the General Court. This step was, lor 
many of the towns, the first real " incorporation :" it may be 
compared, mutatis mutandis, to the conversion of an allod into 
a feud. 

It must, of course, be granted that the state of affairs in 
Great Britain during the years 1631-60 had very much to do 

* 2 New Haven Rec, 493. 
t2 a«?j. Jiec, 34, 61. 



New England State {Connecticut.) 29 

with this opportunity of the town spirit to build up the form 
and fashion of a state in Connecticut. Clialmers * sneeringly 
says of the " little colony of New Haven " that it " enjoyed 
the gratifications of sovereign insignificance" until Charles II 
annexed it, without its consent, to Connecticut. On the con- 
trary, the position of Connecticut was significant in the high- 
est degree. With its neighbor commonwealth of Rhode Island, 
it held for over a century the extreme advanced ground to 
which all the other Commonwealths came up in 1775.f 
King and Parliament sustained the royal veto power over 
the enactments of other colonies; even Massachusetts lost the 
})ower to elect her own Governor; but Connecticut's posi- 
tion still kept alive the general sense of the inherent colonial 
rights which only waited for assertion upon the inevitable 
growth of colonial power. The charter of Connecticut was 
the key-note of the Revolution ; and the terms of that charter 
are due, under God, to the free action of the town system 
transplanted into the perfect liberty of the wilderness. 



* I lievolt of the Cvlonies. 53. 
f Fowler, 101. 



LA^A^ BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED BY 

CUSHINGS & BAILEY, 

BALTIMORE, MD. 



ALEXANDRE'S BRITISH STATUTES IN FORCE IN MARY- 
LAND. 1 vol. 8vo ....$10 00 

BARROLL'S MARYLAND CHANCERY PRACTICE. 1 vol. 8vo. 3 00 
BLAND'S " " RKPORTS. 3 vols. 8vo.. 15 00 

BUMP'S FEDERAL PROCEDURE. 1 vol. 8vo 6 50 

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. Third Edition. 1 

vol. 8vo 6 50 

EVANS' MARYLAND COMMON LAW PRACTICE. 1 vol. 8vo. 4 Oft 
HINKLEY& MAYER ON LAW OF ATTACHMENT IN MARY- 
LAND. 1 vol. 8vo 3 00 

MARYLAND REPORTS. 100 Vols. 8vo. 

" Digest, by Norris, Brown & Brunk. -j 

Compiisini; Harris & McHenrv, 4 vols. Harris & 1 m ^a 
Johnson. 7 vols. Harris & Gill, 2 vols. Gill & [ ^" "" 

Johnson, 12 vols. Bland's Chancery, 3 vols J 

" Digest, by Stockett, Merrick & Millkr. -k 

Comprising Gill, 9 vols. Maryland, 1 — 8 inc. [■ 10 00 

Johnson's Chancery, 4 vols j 

" Digest, by Cohen «fe Lee. ■> 

Comprising 9—20 inc. Maryland / ^'^ ^ 

" Digest, by Burgwyn. •» 

Comprising 21 to 45 inc. Maryland / ^^ ^^ 

POE'S PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE. 2 vols. 

Vol. 1, Pleading 8 00 

" 2, Practice ., 7 00 

GROUND RENTS IN MARYLAND. Ready in July. By Lewis 

Mayer, Esq., of the Baltimore Bar. 1 vol 1 60 

This work is an exhaustive treatise upon the subject of Maryland Land Ten- 
ure, which is of peculiar interest lo students of institutional history. The 
■work also contains a reprint of Mr. Johnson's paper on "Old Maryland 
Manors," Study VII. in the University Series. 

MARYLAND REPORTS. 59 Vols. 1851 to 1882. Per vol 5 00 

A few complete sets of Maryland Reports on hand at present, com- 
prising : 

Harris «& McHenry's Reports. 4 vols. 
Harris & Johnson's " 7 " 

Harris & Gill's " 2 " 

Gill «& Johnson's " 12 " 

Gill's " 9 •' 

Marvland " 59 " 

Bland's Chancery " 3 " 

Johnson's Chancery " 4 " 

100 vols. For sale cheap. 

They also keep a large and complete stock of Law, Classical, Medical and 
Miscellaneous Publications, which they offer for .sale at low prices. 

Agents for Sale of the Publications of the Johns Hopkins 
University, 



ESTABLISHED 1837. 

john murphy & co. 

Publishers, Printers and Booksellers. 

NEW PUBLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 



AN OUTLINE OF IRISH HISTOIIY, From the Earliest Times to 
the Present Day. By Justin H. McCarthy. 1 Volume, 12o., 

cloth, price $ 75 

To those who wish to be intelligently informed in regard to Ireland's past and 
present history, an<i the cause of her existing troubles, this Utile volume, 
written in a concise and entertaining style, will prove invaluable. 

ADELAIDE A. PROCTOR'S POEMS. Complete. With an intro- 
duction by Charles Dickens. 1 volume, 12o., cloth, full gilt... 75 

PATIRA. A Novel, from the French of Raoul de Navery. 1 vol. 

12o., cloth 1 25 

CONSTITUTION OP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
By William Hickey. New edition, revised and enlarged. In 
one elegant volume of 700 pages, 12o. Containing two fine 
Mezzotint Engravings by Sartain. Price, mailed 2 50 

THE REVISED CODE OF THE PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS OF 
THE STATE OF MARYLAND, with the Constitution of the 
State. Compiled by Lewis Mayer, Louis C. Fischer, and E. 
J. D. Cross. Legalized by the General Assembly of 1878. Ap- 
proved by the General Assembly of 1880. 1100 pages, Royal 

8vo.. law sheep, price 10 00 

Interleaved 12 00 

THE TESTAMENTARY LAW, and the Law of Inheritance and 
Api>rentices in Maryland. By Edavard Otis Hinkley, of the 
Baltimore Bar. 1 volume, 784 pages 8 00 

A DIGEST OF THE LAW OF HUSUAND AND WIFE, as Estab- 
lished in Maryland. By David Stewart and Francis K. 
Carey, of the HultimoreBar. 1 vol., 12o., leatherette 3 00 

SYLLABUS OF THE LECTURES DELIVERED BY .lOHN A. 
INGLIS, LIj. D.. Professor of Commercial Law, Equity, &c., 
School of Law, University of Maryland. Junior and Senior 
Course. 4to., paper 2 00 

THE NEW JURY LAW IN FORCE IN BALTIMORE CITY. 

Square ISmo., paper 25 

MARYLAND REPORTS. Vols. 57 and 58., Svo., law sheep, per vol. 5 00 

NEW EDITION OF THE MARYLAND REPORT.S. Harris and 

McHenry, with Brantley's Notes. 4 vols, in 2 books, per book, 6 00 

THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. January Session, 1882. 8vo., sheep, 5 00 



IN PRESS, PREPARING FOR EARLY ISSUE. 

THE LAW OP HEREDITY; A Study of the Cause of Variation and 
the Origin of Living Organisms. By W. K. Brooks, of the 
Johns Hopkins University. 

INDEX TO THE MARYLAND REPORTS AND DIGESTS. By 

J. T. Ringgold, of tbe Maryland Bar. 1 volume, 8vo., sheep.. 10 00 

Any work published in this country will be mailed to any 
address on receipt of price. 

Address, JOHN MURPHY & CO., Publishers, 

BALTmpRE, .MD. 



^X 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Science 

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 



History is past Politics and Politics present History. — Freeman 



XI 



THE 



GENESIS 

OF A 

NEW ENGLAND STATE 

(CONNECTICUT) 

Read before the Historical and Political Science Association, April 13, 1883 

By ALEXANDER JOHNSTON, A. M. 



BALTIMORE 

Published by thb Johns Hopkins Umivebsixy 

S£PT£MBE:B, 1883. 



PROSPECTUS 

OF THE 



Johns Hopkins University Studies 

HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 

H. B. ADAMS, Editor. 



The following Studies are either ready for the press or in active 
preparation. Some of them will be published in the first instance by 
the University. Others will be reprints from the proceedings of 
learned societies, ma-^azines, etc., where they appear in some cases 
under titles slightly different from those here adopted. The idea of 
this series is to bring together, in numbered monographs, kindred 
contributions to Historical and Political Science, so that individual 
efforts may gain strength by combination and become more useful 
as well as more accessible to students The Studies will be pub- 
lished at monthly intervals, but not necessarily in separate form 
or in the following order. A limited edition only of each mono- 
graphic number will be issued and a price will be set upon each as 
soon as it appears. A few single copies will be sold upon applica- 
tion and receipt of price. By paying $3.00 in advance, subscribers 
may avoid the inconvenience of small remittances and be assured of 
receiving, at lower rates, the first twelve numbers, comprising more 
than twelve papers and about 400 pages. A title-page and table 
of contents will be furnished upon completion of the First Series. 

Scie.ntifio communications should be addressed to the Editor; 
business matters, subscriptions, questions touching exchanges, etc., 
to the Publication Agency (N. Murray), Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Subscriptions will also be received, or single copies furnished, 
by G. P. Putnam's Sons, London (18 Henrietta St., Covent Garden) 
AND New York; Porter & Coates, Philadelphia; Cupples, 
UphAxM & Co., (successors of A. Williams & Co.), Boston; Soule 
& Bugbee, Boston; Robert Clarke & Co., Cincinnati; Jansen, 
McClurg & Co., Chicago; James Anglim & Co., Washington; 
Trubner & Co., London; Karl J. Trlbner, Strassburg; Putt- 

KAMMER & MiJULBRECUT, BeRLIN. 

I. An Introduction to American Institutional History. By Edward 

A. Freeman, D.C.L., LL.D. With an account of Mr. Freeman's Visit 
to Baltimore, by the Editor, republished from the Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity Circular, No. 20. (Now ready. Price, 25 cents). 

II. The Germanic Origin of New England Towns. Read before the 
. Harvard Historical Society, May 9, 1881. By H. B. Adams, Ph. D. 

Heidelberg, 1876; Associate Professor of History, Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity. With Notes on Cooperation in University Work, (Now ready. 
Price, 40 cents). 

III. Local Government in Illinois. Reprinted from the Fortnightly Re- 

view. By Albkrt Shaw, A. B. Iowa College, 1879; Johns Hopkins 
University, 1881-2: and Local Government in Pennsylvania. Read 
before the Pennsylvania Historical Society, May 1, 1882, By E. R. L. 
Gould, A, B. Victoria University, 1881; Fellow in History, Johns 
Hopkins University, 1882. (Now ready. Price 30 cents.) 



IV. Saxon Tithingmen in America. Read before the American Antiqua- 

rian Society, October 21, 1881. By H, B. Adams. (Now ready. Price 
25 cents.) 

V. Local Government in Michigan, and the Northwest. Read before the 

Social Science Association, at Saratoga, September 7, 1882. By E. "W. 
Bkmis, A. B. Amherst College, 1880. (Now ready. Price 25 cents.) 

VI. Parish Institutions of Maryland. "With Illustrations from Parish 

Records. Published in abridged form in the Magazine of American 
History, April, 1883. By Edt7ard Ingle, A. B. Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, 1882. (Now ready. Price 40 cents.) 

VII. Old Maryland Manors. Read before the Historical and Political 
Science Association, March 30, 1883. To appear in a book on " Ground 
Rents in Maryland," edited by Lewis Mayer, Esq., published by Cush- 
ings & Bailey, Baltimore. By Johk Johnson, A. B. Johns Hopkins 
University, 1881. (Now ready. Price 30 cents.) 

VIII. Norman Constables in America. Read before the New England 
Historic, Genealogical Society, February 1, 1882, By H. B. Adams. 
(Now ready. Price 50 cent?.) 

IX-X. Village Communities of Cape Anne and Salem. Read in part 
at a Field Meeting of the Essex Institute, August 31, 1881. By 
H. B. Adams. (Double number, in press. Price 50 cents.) 

XI. The Genesis of a New England State (Connecticut). Read before 
the Historical and Political Science Association, April 13, 1883. Abstract 
in University Circular, April, 1888. By Alexander Johnston, A. M. 
Rutgers, 1870. (Now ready. Price 30 cents.) 

Origin and Development of the Municipal Government of New York 
City. I. The Dutch Period. II. The English Period. Published 
in the Magazine of American History, May and September, 1882. 
By J. F. Jameson, Ph. D. Johns Hopkins University, 1882; Associate 
in History, Johns Hopkins University. 

Administration of Berlin compared with that of New York. Two 

articles in The Nation, March 23, 30, 1882. To be revised and en- 
larged for this series. By R. T. Ely, Ph. D. Heidelberg, 1879 , Asso- 
ciate in Political Economy, Johns Hopkins University. 

French and English Institutions in Wisconsin. By W. F. Allen, A. M. ") 
Harvard, 1866; Professor of History and Latin, University of "Wis- 
consin. 

Civil Government in Iowa. By Jesse Macy, A. B. Iowa College, 1869; 
Professor of Historical and Political Science, Iowa College. 

Indian, French, and English Towns in Ohio. By John T. Short, Ph.D. ) 
Leipzig, 1880 ; Professor of History, Ohio State University. 

Old and New Towns of Maryland. Read before the Maryland Historical 
Society, December 11, 1882. By Lewis "W. Wilhelm, A. B. Johns 
Hopkins University, 1880; Fellow in History. 

The Institutions of North Carolina. Read before the Hist, and Polit. ) 
Science Association. Abstract in Johns Hopkins University Circu- 
lar, May, 1882. By Hknry E. Shepherd, University of Virginia, lato 
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Baltimore, now President of the 
College of Charleston, S. C. 



Local Self Government in South Carolina, — the Parish, the District, 

and the County. Read before the South Carolina Historical Society, 
December 15, 1882. With other papers on Free Schools, Markets, Fairs, 
Militia, &c. Abstracts in Johns Hopkins University Circulars, Feb- 
ruary, May, 1882. By B. J. Eamage, A. B., Newberry College, 1880. 
Graduate Scholar in History, J. H. U. 

History of Free Schools in Maryland. By Basil Sollers, City College, 
1871, and L. "W. Wilhelm, A. B. Johns Hopkins University, 1880. 

Montauk, and the Common Lands of Easthampton, Long Island. 

Published in the Magazine of American History, April, 1883. By 
J. F. Jamksok. 

Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town Meeting. Based on studies for a 
new Life of Samuel Adams. By James K. Hosmer, A. M. Harvard, 
1867 ; Professor of English and German Literature, Washington Uni- 
versity, St. Louis. 

The Past and Present of Political Economy, liead before the Historical 
and Political Science Association, October 20, 1882. By E. T. Elt, 
Ph. D. Heidelberg, 1879. 

Review of American Economic Literature since 1876. This review will 
first appear in Conrad's Jahrbiicher der National-oekonomie^ Halle. By 
E. J. James, Ph. D. Halle, 1877, and B, J. Ramage, A. B. Newberry 
College, S. J., 1880. 

Taxation in the United States from 1789 to 1816. A revision of a thesis 
first published in the Tilhinger Zeitschrift, 1879. By Henry C. Adams, 
Ph. D. Johns Hopkins University, 1878; Lecturer on Political Economy 
in the University of Michigan and Professor at Cornell University. 

An Essay on the Financial History of the United States during the 
Civil War. Read before the Historical and Political Science Associa- 
tion, February 10, 1883. By Arthur Yager, A. B. Georgetown College, 
K.y., 1879. Graduate Scholar in Political Economy. 

The Baltimore and Ohio Employes' Relief Association. Read before 
the Historical and Political Science Association, February 23, 1883. 
Abstract in University Circular, April, 1883. By B. J. Ramage. 

The Study of Political Science in Continental Schools. By E. J. 

James, Professor of Political Economy in University of Pennsylvania. 
The Growth of Internationalism. Read before the Historical and Political 
Science Association, May 19, 1882. Published in the International 
Review, April, 1883. By Albert Shaw. 

Municipal Government in Baltimore. By John C. Rose, LL. B. Univer- 
sity of Maryland, 1882. 



NOT E. 

Copies of Numbers I., II., IV., and VIII. of the "Studies" can no 
longer be supplied except to regular subscribers for the First Series of twelve 
numbers. Price, $3.00, payable in advance. 









.-''^ <fr '.It.-''''' '■^— '^-— ^-^' cy^'i- ^ * 












Ts <^ 



<5 < ^ 









rrC C---^ ^^- 



ore c o 









c C-V^' c 






=- .^ <c-^^^ ^^ <:; cc,^. 



:■ CC 






c: d 



^ '^d<; <ci^f^ 

'^■^ <<:__<^j'm: d v. V^^ 
^-' .d ^<i:-fr^ ^"- *-- 

-/d.^'(Xr:^ V 

- d C-d:^ ?' , 



c ^'^ 5 

-d<K <(1C 

crcd <'^ 
dc<rr CC 

<C-d<^r ■ 'cf (' • 

<cr<r<tr 1- 
^:rr<d ^^c: 



^d 



<cL ^ 



c <jc:< 
c <c:c< 

i dx < 



d d CI 4 



i^CCi'^ 
<C^d>^^ 

cd < <:- '^- 



< d ^ 

d'c: " 



^."^ 



I' c c 
Z c c 

C C€Z e.C,d - 

<. cC.CC ^.. < 
< .d CC d' 5 

- d r<: Ci € 



V, v.-l_''- *~ 


' "^ v_ ^ ^. ^ 


»^^ <-<- ^L 


c:<ccz^ 


vc CT'CC ' 


CiL-VC < 


(( <Z CLC* ^> ■ 


^- c CT" «: <?_. 


cs: cc ^ 


:■ < c:<z '-' 


'^^ .CT'CC 


c::^ cc < 




'C c:><5.c 


<^sc < 


4 c ^<^ '■ 


> ^ d" <-<:<:<£■•• 


•ci::^c.<: 


-Tree <cr<:: c. 


or c?^ 


c:::'^ c <: 


-^ <r <:i:<l': cc 


<rr c< <r 


c: <:: 


<r <cr <' ^ 


c:: <^ <sz 


o <c^ 


c: «c::^ <r e 


^ <Z.''<J'^:' 


c: <^ 


c <c<r:c 


" c__ c<i\<c:: 


c^cr« 


c <cr <::..c 


• d" cjc« <c:: 


<cs<cc:"^:< 


<: <c*;_<^., <cr' 


- <L c<:i ^7 


cr,<r>=%.„ 






^C;:' ._<:^ <C-- XT' cJii^'^ 



=„- •< cis; ;■<:<?:: -.<«^'; CjiCl CC Ci 
_:==- C r-v <r <r< <C<II cc c 

''.< '■L<zi c<cc<:0:c ■ 



^<|... <c^_<:' c ■ cac^jc:, C5CCCC oc5c:'<:r '■<-«;■ 
__<c : <2c '^d<?3C' cccccjC CC3C cic' -' c <2: <^^ 



_JKC1 



cT < 

<^:^ 

. C2f ■ - 



:;c ^cir ^c;, <s:cc t'<t:'<<scs 



-7 <rc-<^^ 
"iCT'c'c 



d'c <i;' csxd <^ccc c cwdt- ^.'- <iC<s: 

- — ore 



<^' cr cs: c- 

<^ cr ■ cr^- c 

<s: ccf <^-. . ' 

cc <mC<Z<S <ZZ 

CCS' <acri 

^cr cccrcTct: 

.<C <rcr ^ c d_ 



cgrC 



<:c ^ 

: ^ 









<r'C?r<t:gr - 



C^ C 
Cc C' - 












;<^d <: ct:^ ' 
<x:(C ^< 






cc 

" cc: 

cC 

CC_ ' 

cc;/^ 






T ^^^:?c: < 
^ cc: <t: 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 111 609 5 % 



